Thursday, February 23, 2012

Third time the charm for herring catch shares?

The state Board of Fisheries begins a 10-day meeting tomorrow in Ketchikan to consider dozens of Southeast Alaska finfish proposals.

Proposals 233 and 234 are especially noteworthy. These would create equal harvest shares for Sitka Sound sac roe herring seiners.

The board has rejected the idea twice before, in 2006 and 2009.

Supporters, however, argue the imperative for equal shares has never been greater.

Converting the fishery from a cutthroat competition to an equal split among the 48 seiners would tame the harvest, improve safety and boost the quality of the catch, they say.

"Everyone in the fishery should realize safety in the fishery has deteriorated to a despicable level and something needs to be done," says Proposal 233, offered by Bill Menish.

The name Menish might sound familiar. During last year's fishery, his boat sustained $40,000 in damage in a collision with another vessel. Daniel Crome, who was running the second boat, is being prosecuted on a charge of reckless operation.

Menish's proposal says the roughhouse tactics at Sitka have become increasingly premeditated, with more seiners joining "combines" in which some members use their boats or nets to block competitors as other members fish.

One argument against equal shares is that the top seiners, the "highliners," would be denied the chance to compete for a lucrative, blockbuster catch. Instead, they would net the same share of the harvest as everyone else.

But Menish notes that combine seiners already are engaging in catch sharing.

And the sponsor of Proposal 234, the Sitka Herring Group, cites state Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission data to argue that the notion of consistent highliners at Sitka is "a myth."

The Alaska Department of Fish and Game is "neutral" on the two proposals.

How about you?


Anonymous said...

Rockem Sockem Robots, If you can's Stand the HEAT Get Out of the Water

Fishing has always been fishing.
Those of us that have the balls believe in ourselves. We work harder, prepare our boats for battle, and engage.
You can't take away the our drive to be the best. Turn it into a
co-op and you will only be average. I Want That BIG SET!

Anonymous said...

You must be what, about 16 yrs. old?

Anonymous said...

The probability is 56 years old, with the intelligence of a 3rd grader, a S.E. Seine requirement, where optimum numbers "ONLY" apply in some S.E. Purse Seine Fisheries.

AS 16. 43. 270

"during all years in an orderly, efficient manner, and consistent with sound fishery management techniques;

"all" that big confusing word again.

Anonymous said...

Awwwwwww, you knocked my block off!

Let's play Battleship!

Anonymous said...

'Sorry' would be the better game to play. 'Sorry' folks and the critters who live off the herring, we're killing them off for their roe.

JuneauTek said...

The real key here is the value of the product. Harvesting just at the right time ensures great roe. Reducing the number of boats that fish could impact the quality and volume of optimal roe harvested. We should focus more on the product and less on the egos of fishermen.

Anonymous said...

I think they should go coop and the state should issue more permits.

Anonymous said...

Lets just up the quota another 25,000 tons for the big money, and then we could get another buyback for Sitka too.
Like Silver Bay Zuanich, he can figure out how to pay off Parnell, and our new Petersburg red head too.

Jason Miller said...

Menish has some great points regarding combines and cooping their catch, its already going on throughout the majority of the fleet in Sitka.

All fisherman participating in this fishery are capable, so the argument of I can catch more fish then you is Elementary, the argument should be what will you be paid for those fish and the fishery is suppose to be managed for maximum sustainable yield. Last year 1 market asked their fleet to stand down as they could not sell the glut of product, wow!!!

Right now, the market is extremely poor for Sitka Herring Roe, time to try something new. Equal split has worked wonderfully for the Chatham and Clarence Blackcod fishery in SE, if you want to prove you have the most horsepower, drive the fastest, cut people off, use overly aggressive tactics, join NASCAR or your local Demolition Derby.

I grew up in this fishery and have had some amazing experiences, but this fishery has changed due to market conditions and overly aggressive fishing tactics, and that won't change anytime soon. There is a definite need to adapt, otherwise kiss this fishery good bye.

Jason Miller

Anonymous said...

On the downside it takes the competetion away from the fishermen that comes with the rewards. The flipside it stablize the fishery for the future and safe lifes.

Anonymous said...

the problem is that there are too many shit show fishing operations out there and the guys that have professional operations deserve more fish/money then the other clowns out there. you worked for years to get your boat, crew and gear in the as effective as possible, so do you deserve to make the same amount of money as some idiot who bought in three or four years ago (Dean Anderson)

Anonymous said...

Evidently the law review cannot be read for shit shows either.

"If the board passes an equal share regulation...The Board and Department cannot establish cooperative style fisheries by regulation or emergency order under State v. Grunert 139 P.3d 1226 (2006)

Of course it's clearly exposed Optimum Number Mandate, always confuses Petersburg's shit show.

deserve? like dessert with shit on top!

Anonymous said...

Elementary my Dear Watson, as cited in Law's Comments

Idiot=DOA, and why waste the ink.

The wreckless endangerment clause chrome plated!

Anonymous said...


When Elementary School, was a confusng subject matter.

Anonymous said...

What's a shit show law operation?

State of Alaska, Priceless!

Anonymous said...

thank you for the refresher, almost forgot about Grunert, you nutjob

Jason Miller said...

Anonymous and Dean,

Interesting points and some good ones, but my argument is simply, this fishery currently has little to no value, and the continued large quota's will only compound the already existing problem the Roe market currently is experiencing.

I don't see s*** operations in the Sitka Herring fleet, most if not all are top notch operations and fishermen. The best opportunity for quality and conservation should be the priority for fishermen these days, not I caught the most fish today, big deal if you can't sell them, or if you do, be worth very little, and next year possibly not having a market for the product as there is such a glut from the previous 3 years.

I'm not a permit holder and glad I didn't buy into the fishery in the past 3 years, but for those who did, it may have made sense for them at the time, at least they made an investment into the fishery, and do have more of a say than I do, as they actually acquired the privilege to participate in the fishery and employ vessels, crewmen, pilots, tenders, processors etc.

After this season, it may be a great time to buy, once the Roe market becomes even more saturated then it already is, permit prices should come down, unless equal split passes.

Jason Miller

Anonymous said...

Like the nut jobs in Chignik?

Let us forget....Black and White.

Anonymous said...

Go baby go!!! Processor shares here we come!!!

Jason Miller said...


There are no processor shares in the Chatham and Clarence Blackcod Equal Split fisheries, so why assume processor shares would happen in the Herring fishery?

Processors don't need PS in these type of fisheries as some Co's already have control mechanisms over their existing fleets through markets for other fishery products, vessel and permit loans etc..., so in essence they already have the leverage they need without the formalities.

I like the Silver Bay Model, fishermen owners harvesting, processing, and marketing their own product, being vertically integrated with a substantial competitive advantage only makes sense as that's exactly how Icicle and Trident started, but is no longer the case, Silver Bay is now the exception, not the Rule.

Why can't the Sitka Herring Fleet agree to equal split and look to get the best return on investment in a safe fishing environment with the least impact on the herring stock?

If I were a permit holder I would support equal split, vertically integrate the process by hiring the best harvester, processor, and marketer that met my needs and when complete move on to another fishery. What is wrong with that?

Fishing is a business, regardless of what people say, and you do need to operate at a profit, so why begrudge someone with a different idea, especially since the current method has yielded poor economic results and an unsafe fishing environment, and in my on opinion, its not likely to get any better, in fact worse.

Anonymous said...

more permits to petersburg

Anonymous said...

Is there even a market for herring roe these days?

Jason Miller said...

On another note, Wes you need to remove the disparaging and vulgar remarks directed towards Cora Campbell Now!!!

Anonymous, you could learn a lot about RESPECT and PROFESSIONALISM from a person like Cora, as you obviously need to address some serious issues and character flaws, sad and pathetic that you feel the need to disrespect a woman in that fashion:

Cora is a great upstanding, intelligent, honest woman who comes from a hardworking fishing family. She is more than qualified to be our State's Fish and Game Commissioner and doing a great job.

Jason Miller

Anonymous said...

The truth is Menish is a clam digging douche bag that has never been able to catch his own fish any where.!!! Always needed a pilot to set him or some crab gear to set around or a bag to watch to find a spot. Or 2 clicks over the line in Bristol Bay. Ask his crew.!!!!! He can hardly get any experienced (person) to run his boats for him anymore. For everything other than Sitka. All about Bill only!!!!

Anonymous said...

You Guys really need to lay off the bashing of Cora. Good Honest person. She will do justice equally for all of us fisherman. Give her a chance.

Anonymous said...

Respect is EARNED, not granted, just in case your from Petersburg, Jason.


Up the Quota, Priceless!

Serious Issues and Character Flaws, sad and pathetic facts, is this the respect class you attended Jason?

Happy Homecoming!

LISA, loves you too Jason


Jason Miller said...


You continue to prove my point regarding the way you represent yourself and attack people who are actually making a difference in the seafood industry. You obviously disagree, and to get satisfaction you come onto a blog and post under an anonymous name, how in the hell do you gain respect from that?

Just continue to armchair quarterback from your computer, where you have solved all of your problems and have made everyone agree with your point of view.

Menish is not a clam digger and is a good man, fishermen and businessman. Sounds like someone ate some sour grapes to me.

Jason Miller

Anonymous said...


Keep huffing that "good" paint and taking "good" LSD!

Anonymous said...

You aint Anon, you da boobyt. Shhhh!!!

Anonymous said...

Dean Anderson,

So does running a professional operation leave grown men crying after they're found at fault for running their professional operations into other boats? And at what point does your business of big catch outweigh your insurance costs???

Anonymous said...

I like sour grapes, and I know some clam diggers too, ever dig clams?

I didn't call Menish a clam digger, but I did, and will, call a politician what he or she is, a politician or PAC, when their lips move there lying, kinda like a razor clam, trying to hide their head under the sand...diggin deeper?

No-one make's anyone agree with anything, you, me, he or she, but in this matter a FORMAL OPINION closes the issue.

Ever go Purse Seining in Alaska???

"We hold that the board exceeded its authority by promulgating the 2005 emergency regulation, former 5 AAC 15.358, because the cooperative fishery created by the emergency regulation was fundamentally at odds with the Limited Entry Act, AS 16.43...Under the limited entry system, holders who don't do well for whatever reason-bad luck, bad judgment, bad finances, bad equipment, who knows-are going to economically suffer, and ultimately their option is to-you know, their end game is to sell the permit, get out of the fishery, and some new entrant will arrive on the scene.   Under the co-op system, those who for whatever set of reasons are less able to succeed economically will rationally opt to participate as minimally as possible.   Ten deliveries only and then they stop.   That permit remains in their hands and new people don't come in, whether those are new people from the local community or from Anchorage or from Seattle, that doesn't matter, but there is going to be less turnover. That may be a wiser system.   I'm not making a judgment as to which is better, but they are clearly different, and the first is the one that is set up by the Act, and I think the second system is not permitted by the Act. Perhaps that should be changed, but that's not my call.

The old system also encourages more boats, more equipment, a greater, more expanded support system of equipment providers, bankers, people who sell food, people who ship stuff to the Bush so that they can feed the crew members, probably a greater number of crew members as well.   It is also true that that support system is probably more fragile and more prone to collapse because there's a lot of credit out there, there is a lot of risk being taken, and somebody's going to fail and the system will tumble, and that's clearly why the co-op system is being sought as a response to the problems that have already been faced, not only by the permit holders who have opted for the co-op system, but also for the Chignik community in general.

And again, it may be a rational way to spread the economic risk, but given the Supreme Court's decision in Grunert and its articulation of the requirements, policies, goals, participatory, and economic model of the limited entry system, I do not-I cannot find that the modifications to the co-op regulations-that this new reg to the co-op system that this new regulation has enacted satisfies the problems identified in Grunert.   So I find that the new regulation exceeds the authority of the Board of Fisheries and is invalid.

Anonymous said...

At some point permit holders are going to be confronted with some realities of not being able to come together. Is this element of sport really outweighing a livelihood or living? Collisions exceeding $100k or more are actually justified in seasons with prices allowing less than that amount in gross - as proven on a recent reality show featuring the fishery. As fisherman we've become advocates of quality more and more in other fisheries. In Sitka, quality is not the concern it should be, especially when it's with a product to a customer like Japan. Quality should be as focus then. It seems like that goes right out the window when 400 tons of 8% herring is pumped just because it's a 400 ton set.

I'm not guilty to say that I'm in it for the money. Sure I have fun, but I've gotta have something to live off of. At some point insurance costs are going to simply outweigh operating costs.

Jason Miller said...

Coop and EHS are 2 separate issues, and 2 fisheries in SE Alaska already exist with EHS. Southern Southeast Alaska Sablefish and Northern Southeast Sablefish aka Clarence Straits Blackcod and Chatham Straits Blackcod. Please quit comparing the Chignik Coop to the EHS BOF proposal by Menish and Sitka Herring Group. The coop effort in Chignik was supported by some of the same guys who are now opposed to EHS in Sitka, wow...

Whats even more interesting is the Alaska Herring Assoc. BOF proposals try to limit net depth to 1025 meshes and net length to 175 fathoms claiming its better for the resource and quality, its my opine that the intent of these measures are to make the smaller faster vessels more competitive by forcing the fishery into shallow waters to the detriment of the larger vessels with deeper gear and the herring that move to shallow waters to spawn.

Ever go purse seining in Alaska, yep, I grew up seining for herring and salmon in SE. I started at 11 and am now 33, so 22 years in both fisheries.

Jason Miller

Anonymous said...

So the Limited Entry Act only applies in Chignik?

Special Exemptions are always known to come from SEAS.

You've been hanging out in Petersburg way too long.

Jason Miller said...


Not to mention how that 8% 400 ton set impacts the market price, and crap quality taken away from the quota, how awesome.

There is a problem, price sucks due to market conditions and slamming another 30,000 tons of product down a saturated market will not help, regardless if you catch the entire quota yourself, superman. Time for a change.

Jason Miller said...

If EHS violates the Limited Entry Act how do the 2 fisheries I mentioned exist under the LEA?

Why did the Coop fail?

Come on now, I thought you would know the answer or do you moonlight as a Juris Doctorate too?

You've been hanging out in cyberspace too long.

Jason Miller

Anonymous said...

The Chignik Boys actually most likely read Laws Comments, as printed, and published in the Ketchikan Board record.

Publius, it can never help, and Don't go shallow, too high of a roe % when you get that close to the beach.

Fishin for Tuition long?

Anonymous said...

Like Clam Diggin, shallow always works best!

Anonymous said...

And Jason,

Thanks for bringing EHS to our attention, as explained clearly in Grunert, they got rid of Latin quite a few years back, english must be a difficult subject at Petersburg Packing Public School's

[W]e consider first whether the board exceeded its statutory mandate in promulgating the regulation, either by pursuing impermissible objectives or by employing means outside its powers.   Determining the extent of an agency's authority involves the interpretation of statutory language, a function uniquely within the competence of the courts and a question to which we apply our independent judgment.   Second, we consider whether the regulation is reasonable and not arbitrary.   Where highly specialized agency expertise is involved, we will not substitute our own judgment for the board's.   Our role is to ensure only that the agency has taken a hard look at the salient problems and has genuinely engaged in reasoned decision making.   And third, we consider whether the regulation conflicts with any other state statutes or constitutional provisions.[24]

B. We Review the Validity of the Emergency Regulation Under the Public Interest Exception to the Mootness Doctrine.

 Because the emergency regulation has expired and no relief can be granted to reverse its effect on the 2005 Chignik purse seine salmon season, the question of the regulation's validity is technically moot.25  Although we generally refrain from deciding questions when events have rendered the legal issues moot, we may consider certain issues if they fall within the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine.26

 We consider three factors in determining whether an issue falls within the public interest exception:  “(1) whether the disputed issues are capable of repetition, (2) whether the mootness doctrine, if applied, may cause review of the issues to be repeatedly circumvented, and (3) whether the issues presented are so important to the public interest as to justify overriding the mootness doctrine.” 27  “None of these factors is dispositive;  each is an aspect of the question of whether the public interest dictates that a court review a moot issue.” 28

 All three factors support present review.   First, the disputed issues are capable of repetition and indeed have already repeated themselves.   On November 16, 2005 the board voted to adopt a permanent regulation similar to the 2005 emergency regulation.   In addition, the board informed us at oral argument that it has established cooperative regimes in other fisheries around the state.   Second, because the publication of a judicial decision regarding a permanent regulation might unavoidably occur shortly before a new Chignik purse seine salmon season, the board might again feel compelled to promulgate another short-term emergency regulation, potentially preventing effective judicial review.   Moreover, because the board has already voted to adopt a substantially similar permanent regulation, failing to review the now-expired emergency regulation will merely delay judicial review of the essence of the cooperative scheme.   Dismissing the appeal as moot will not advance issue finality or judicial or party economy.   Third, the board argues that the validity of the cooperative regime is of great public interest.   We agree.   That great public interest is evidenced by the numerous meetings of the board to consider regulatory changes to the Chignik fishery as well as by the outcry of members of the public both opposing and supporting the state's motion to stay Grunert I. Because the emergency regulation was similar to the recently proposed regulation, because the board has dedicated a substantial amount of time to the cooperative program, and because many people have an interest in the outcome, we will consider whether the emergency regulation was valid under the public interest exception...

You should have stayed in school at 11

Jason Miller said...


You only answered the chignik coop question to some degree, not the EHS question.

I guess my Petersburg education limits me to understanding your vast superior intellect, LOL!!! You have to be kidding me, anyone can copy and paste. Let's hear your perspective in your own words without the little jabs.

It must irritate you being the smartest person in the room and not be able to answer a simple question like Why do the 2 EHS fisheries exist then? I assume you haven't found someone else's words to copy and paste yet.

Anonymous said...


Once you start censoring the blog and removing comments to keep someone's name out of the controversy, even if it is the ADFG commissioner, you are no longer a journalist. In fact you are worse than the idiots that post their drivel here. Time for Deckboss to get shut down hauled out and rot on the beach.

Anonymous said...

The bottom line here is that the permit holders could do this on their own. All they have to do is agree to do it. a board of fish action is draconian. Jason is right it does make sense to do this under these market conditions, with this quota. But through the board of fish,no.
Bill Menish, a good man, HA! Clam digging douche bag is a compliment to that guy.

Anonymous said...

So, let's see. Jamie advocates a salmon coop in Chignik because after a short period of time he realizes he can't catch his ass with both hands or perhaps the trust fund is getting a little low. Then, in Sitka it's all ahead full, and you're a pussy if you want an equal share fishery in the face of the worst market in history and...... he and his partners are by far the most out of hand, blocking, bullying, irresponsible operators of the bunch. Only in Alaska.

Anonymous said...


I think you have a Herring fascination. Go hit Dean A. up for a job and get it out of your system.

We're really gonna hear some high pitch whining when the price of fuel goes through the roof, and guys can't set at 25 knots.

There are lots of proposals and fisheries issues out there. Most fisherman and residents in Ak, could give a shit about the Herring Babies, they have there salmon to fish, Sac roe fishing is a waste! Quit glamourising it.

Anonymous said...

Petersburg = ethically challenged fish thieves

Anonymous said...

Jason Miller - the Coop did not fail, it was illegal.

Quit being a troll and go educate yourself, Google is your friend. It is not the job of commenters on the Deckboss to fill in the blank spaces in your learning.

Anonymous said...

Don't cut and paste, what everyone learned in 8th grade civics class

1803 Marbury v. Madison?

What "IS" a CHIEF?

Juris Doctorate? WTF? tuition, intuition, fishin for tuition, waste of tuition, waste of school tax funds, and can we get anyone but ourselves to be actually able to pass 8th grade civics class anywhere in the world?


"..2. If he has a right and the right has been violated do the laws of his country afford him a remedy....
From these and many other selections which might be made, it is apparent, that the framers of the consti- [5 U.S. 137, 180] tution contemplated that instrument as a rule for the government of courts, as well as of the legislature.

Why otherwise does it direct the judges to take an oath to support it? This oath certainly applies, in an especial manner, to their conduct in their official character. How immoral to impose it on them, if they were to be used as the instruments, and the knowing instruments, for violating what they swear to support!

The oath of office, too, imposed by the legislature, is completely demonstrative of the legislative opinion on this subject. It is in these words: 'I do solemnly swear that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich; and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge all the duties incumbent on me as according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to the constitution and laws of the United States.'

Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the constitution of the United States, if that constitution forms no rule for his government? if it is closed upon him and cannot be inspected by him.

If such be the real state of things, this is worse than solemn mockery. To prescribe, or to take this oath, becomes equally a crime.

It is also not entirely unworthy of observation, that in declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the constitution itself is first mentioned; and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the constitution, have that rank.

Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.

The rule must be discharged."

Mamma take my CodaChrome, Mamma Take My Cora Chrome, Mamma take my Codachrome away...

Anonymous said...

1,2, buckle my shoe.

"And third, we consider whether the regulation conflicts with any other state statutes or constitutional provisions." Chief Justice

"If such be the real state of things, this is worse than solemn mockery. To prescribe, or to take this oath, becomes equally a crime." Chief Justice

Jason Miller said...


Why call me a troll when I asked a legitimate question regarding 2 existing EHS fisheries and how they do not violate the LEA. I have yet to get an answer from Anonymou(s).

I know the answer, and apparently Anonymou(s) has yet to find someone else's words to copy and paste.

No education needed regarding the Chignik Coop decision, its just interesting to read another person's opinion, it was obviously ruled on by the court.

It doesn't matter to me how the Sitka fishery winds up as I don't own a permit, nor plan to the way the fishery currently exists.

I'm just expressing my views as a participant with family who have fished this fishery from its inception to present.

The Economic factors and Market realities have to weigh in at some point, but processors can sell the product for almost no value, so lets go fish and not worry about it.

Jason Miller said...

If the Coop was deemed Illegal, doesn't that mean it failed?

Anonymous said...


Mel Morris, and his favorite Klub,

The Ku Klux Act of 1871, (42 USC 1983)$File/06-35742.PDF

Anonymous said...

Jaso, illegal does not equal failed as in an effort that fails to deliver its' intended purpose. Illegal means against the law. Petersburg schools promote both failure and illegal activities on two seperate but equally aggravating fronts. Understand?


Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...

Nice Cite;

"The Board could not make an ad hoc ruling because it has no power to rule on individual permits: that power is granted to the Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission. Alaska Stat. §16.43.100 (2007)."

"NO POWER to rule on Individual Permits"

What's 9th Circuit Mean, and those fancy rules of Federal Criminal procedure

In how many fisheries Jason?

CO-OP and EHS, Carl Marx had a wet dream too,

Jason Miller said...


I equate the Coop effort being deemed illegal a failure in achieving its objective, which was to Coop the fishery, understand?

Petersburg schools have nothing to do with promoting illegal activities, but do prepare its students to learn from failure and keep pushing through with hard work and determination until you succeed.

So have a happy, prosperous and successful season.

God Bless you and your family,

Jason Miller

Anonymous said...

Bless You Petersburg! No Saint required

Anonymous said...

God Bless the Queen! ow we know what she means!

David Clark said...

Jason Miller- Great job getting your point across. Whoever the anon is, he is a real treasure. I hope this guy has nothing to do with fishing. Say you you are, its not that hard to spell a name.

Anonymous said...

Kinda hard to compose a sentence though, you you. Appears to be another self effacing Petersburgian.

Knew a Dave Clark once, a real wanna-be slickster. BOF saw right through his cheap 3 piece suit.

So JM, if the weekday school isn't the culprit, must be the Sunday school. Ah yes, where the fishing heros BT and the Fug were "Confirmed". Oops, we forgot to teach Commandments 8,9,and 10. Bad testimonies.

Down to the issue at hand. Private coops are one thing, State sanctioned coops are completely different (think Cuba, USSR, China, etc...). I am NOT into socialism/communism, comrade. They don't promote excellence. We are strengthened through our competitiveness. We advance through additional rewards for added efforts. We are (supposedly) limited by collectively recognized civil and legally enforced principles.

Communism/Socialism works only for those at the top, the masses wallow in mud and vodka.

Hope you hear a good message today, the Truth will set you free.


Anonymous said...

Actually Private Co-op's are also questionable.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WHITE delivered the opinion of the court.
Let us consider the language of the first and second sections, guided by the principle that, where words are employed in a statute which had at the time a well known meaning at common law or in the law of this country, they are presumed to have been used in that sense unless the context compels to the contrary.
As to the first section, the words to be interpreted are:

Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy in restraint of trade or commerce . . . is hereby declared to be illegal.

As there is no room for dispute that the statute was intended to formulate a rule for the regulation of interstate and foreign commerce, the question is what was the rule which it adopted?

Anonymous said...

Boone & Crockett(R), hunting for trophies, with educated cabin boys, Knox(R), Hay(R), and a Senator named Sherman(R).

The Petersburg School District, F-

Anonymous said...

Jason, if you know the answer and keep on asking the question just to roil the waters, you are a classic troll.

Don't like being called a troll? Then quit acting like one.

As far as failed - depends on how you describe "fail." I think that if you are profiting because you did not follow the law is not considered a success, unless you like being a criminal. But you are showing some shifty ethics now, aren't you?

Jason Miller said...

I enjoy discussing issues with people unafraid of their own name.

Still no answer regarding EHS fisheries that do not violate LEA, no surprise, keep copying and pasting and you may stumble upon it one day.

I will no longer comment on any post author who cannot put their real name to what they say, period.

I wish you all a successful and prosperous season, and may god bless each and everyone of you.

Jason Miller

Anonymous said...

Jason - it won't ruin my day not to see you here asking a question you can go find the answer to yourself. Commenters here owe you NOTHING.

Hope you like not posting and talking to only yourself.

Anonymous said...

JM, I'm thinking you mean the blessing to be genuine, but, it sounds a little tiny Tim-ish, and sarcastic, which would really be defeating your purpose if you honestly meant it. Also, I question your validity with it since you didn't capitalize God the last time. Careful there son, blasphemy is not smiled upon, 3rd Commandment.

Truth with no name is still the truth. What's in a name?

Munoz said...

For the record, I would like to see anyone disproving Jason's argument of EHS fisheries that don't violate LEA. It's a good question and I haven't seen any credible arguments.

Simply put, much of this name calling by anonymous really implies nothing other than an inability to come up with the right answer. How about taking an educated approach to this argument and you'll see some progress here. This comment page stopped about 1/3 of the way up as nothing could be said besides insults.

Anonymous said...

Jason, it was a nice try, but remember, go to deckboss for fishing related news, click on comments section for laughs. You will never find anything positive going on in here.

Jason Miller said...


You hit the nail on the head and I agree with you 100%.

When one can't dispute facts then attack the messenger.

I got tired of arguing semantics, I could care less about the last word, just what is true, honest, and accurate.

salty seaman said...

bunch of trolls in here...ill see you all in Sitka....unfortunately

Bill Clinton said...

I did not have sex with that woman, Monica Lewinski.

Michelle Osama said...

Oh look dear, someone signed their name to that posting above. He must be telling the truth. What a dear, sweet, honest man.

Anonymous said...

EHS shares - here is a question: why did ethically challenged bobby t hire Floyd Kookesh to lobby for him & EHS when Floyd was employed by Tlingit & Haida Central Council as the Native subsistence coordinator? That seems like a LEA violation to me, a direct conflict of interest.

Anonymous said...

You have it all wrong. In the great fishing industry of Alaska that is not a conflict of interest, no conflict, just interest. Conspiring interests.

Ignorant youngin said...

Has Sitka been a "unsafe" fishery for the participants? I know boats collide but have people been dieing or getting hurt? I actually don't know the numbers does anyone?

Anonymous said...

what do you get when a montana sheep farmer fornicates with sheep? you end up with Jmaie Ross

Anonymous said...

If prop# 233 passes and the sitka herring fishery goes equal split, there will be no more wolfpack tactics such as the Jamie Ross group gets away with. then you will see just how good Mr Ross is a a producer. my opinion is if he was not in a combine, Jamie Ross couldn't catch crabs off a toilet seat.
(kevin kristovich)

Anonymous said...

Looks to me like a reallocation of the resource to a select few and doing away with hundreds of jobs. Regulations have never been about safety although that argument has been used--it is about the money period. Again crewmembers are treated like gear.

Anonymous said...

All the regulations in the world, and then some more, it will bring us much safety to this despicable reckless operation.

"tame the harvest, improve safety and boost the quality, quality from a troll, is always job 1.

Premeditated Reckless Mess, we got the combine for you so we can all be the same.

DEMOCRATS! Rat Infested forever!

Anonymous said...

And what's the matter with a troll, at least they don't drive, and fish drunk!

How much "IS" a herring worth, as a cut-plug?

See ya in Sitka?
Mirror, Mirror on the wall who's the biggest troll of roe, or cut bait?

Che Munoz said...

So I heard the Memry Anne is not fishing this year in Sitka. McGill is going on the Osprey. could assume he is who's got the shit operation now? He can even get insured!!!!!!! Hahahahabahahabahahabah!!!!!!!!

Jason Miller said...

EHS for Sitka Herring did not get the "3rd time charm" it was voted down 6-1 by this board...

I look forward to watching the permit price coming down to real fair market value based on actual gross revenue of the participants.

Its gonna be fun for the next few years!!!

Anonymous said...

What does new closed area mean for the future of the fishery?

Anonymous said...

we got fusked so good it didnt feel good at all. off to juneau. now Jamie Ross and his gang of chicken theives have free reign to harass and block other boats to their financial gain. time to fight back block them and he will sue you since hes such a chickenshit faggot who doesnt believe in individual acheivment or success he is such a parasite!! scum sucker to boot!! Kevin "Sharky" Kristovich

Anonymous said...


I'll bring the beer.

Anonymous said...

3 X 0 = 0

"no power"$File/06-35742.PDF

Executive, Legislative, and...."Three generations of imbeciles are enough."

" This element is illustrated by cases of capture, although no doubt the point at which the line is drawn is affected by consideration of the degree of power obtained as against other people, as well as by that which has been gained over the object. The Roman and the common law agree that, in general, fresh pursuit of wild animals does not give the pursuer the rights of possession. Until escape has been made impossible by some means, another may step in and kill or catch and carry off the game if he can. Thus it has been held that an action does not lie against a person for killing and taking a fox which had been pursued by another, and was then actually in the view of the person who had originally found, started, and chased it. The Court of Queen's Bench even went so far as to decide, notwithstanding a verdict the other way, that when fish were nearly surrounded by a seine, with an opening of seven fathoms between the ends, at which point boats were stationed to frighten them from escaping, they were not reduced to possession as against a stranger who rowed in through the opening and helped himself. But the difference between the power over the object which is sufficient for possession, and that which is not, is clearly one of degree only, and the line may be drawn at different places at different times on grounds just referred to. Thus we are told that the legislature of New York enacted, in 1844, that any one who started and pursued deer in certain counties of that State should be deemed in possession of the game so long as he continued in fresh pursuit of it, and to that extent modified the New York decisions just cited. So, while Justinian decided that a wild beast so badly wounded that it might easily be taken must be actually taken before it belongs to the captors, Judge Lowell, with equal reason, has upheld the contrary custom of the American whalemen in the Arctic Ocean, mentioned above, which gives a whale to the vessel whose iron first remains in it, provided claim be made before cutting in...Legal duties are logically antecedent to legal rights. What may be their relation to moral rights if there are any, and whether moral rights are not in like manner logically the offspring of moral duties, are questions which do not concern us here. These are for the philosopher, who approaches the law from without as part of a larger series of human manifestations. The business of the jurist is to make known the content of the law; that is, to work upon it from within, or logically, arranging and distributing it, in order, from its stemmum genus to its infima species, so far as practicable. Legal duties then come before legal rights. To put it more broadly, and avoid the word duty, which is open to objection, the direct working of the law is to limit freedom of action or choice on the part of a greater or less number of persons in certain specified ways; while the power of removing or enforcing this limitation which is generally confided to certain other private persons, or, in other words, a right corresponding to the burden, is not a necessary or universal correlative. Again, a large part of the advantages enjoyed by one who has a right are not created by the law. The law does not enable me to use or abuse this book which lies before me. That is a physical power which I have without the aid of the law. What the law does is simply to prevent other men to a greater or less extent from interfering with my use or abuse. And this analysis and example apply to the case of possession, as well as to ownership."

Salty Seaman said...

why is everyone mad at Jamie Ross? Must be frustrating when you look past your anchor and see the starboard side of the 'Fax....lololololololololol. He does it for the lulz!!

Anonymous said...

Dear Sally,

It is only because over the last 25 years he is by the far the most annoying, ego centric, full of himself idiot that has roamed the seas. For those of us on the herring circuit his voice on the radio is like listening to 100 fingernails raking a chalkboard. Perhaps if you are so enamored you might lure him away to a remote tropical isle and remove him from the gene pool forever for the sake of humanity.

Anonymous said...

@ salty seaman is that what you eat jamie ross' salty semen? you seem to defend and support him!

Carp Fishing said...

Thanks for this nice and informative post. Huge crowds are here to express their views on the hot topic.The regulatory body should consider the fisherman's thought .However i also like fishing specially Carp fishing. I have found Carp fishing
is more feasible and comfortable for me.We can do this even in our village.However thanks agin for this nice and informative post on fishing and fisherman's news.

Anonymous said...

Common use and least impingement right from the AK Constitution. Plus Grunart 1 and 2 tell the tale that co-ops are not legal in AK limited entry.

But the real truth is that Cora the red head from Petersburg is smart, but she is just another quisling that works for others that hold the purse strings not for the resident fishermen of Alaska. She's turned he back on logic and what is right fish federal fisheries. She attacks someone giving false testimony at the NPFMC but doesn't follow up on what she took an oath to do at the council and turn them in for their false testimony and fixing the problems. I would trust that bitch for nothing, she just more Petersburg mafia. Glad Winters is gone too.